- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:09:13 -0800
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > I commend you for having done the analysis of these services and I agree > that education is needed but I see the exact same tendencies in many > HTTP/HTML form-based "applications". I am not saying this to justify any > of this but rather to point out that the problem seems to be related to > application models and not so much protocols. > > >Can you point me to a public, running SOAP-based web service that does > >*not* take information that rightfully would have URIs and be "in the > >Web information space" and put that information behind a method-based > >interface with no addressability? Would you agree that there are HTTP-based services that do not have the problems I've outlined in UDDI and the other SOAP services? For instance, Expedia seems to me to be a nice, transaction-oriented service that makes excellent use of URIs to bring transactional information into the web space. For instance this URI represents an intinerary for a flight I just took: * http://www.expedia.ca/pub/agent.dll?qscr=open&itid=34975148&updt=1 So it is clear that from a web architecture point of view, HTTP can be a force for both good and evil. If someone could point me at a public, functional SOAP+HTTP service that did not abuse HTTP and dilute the web architecture then I could say the same about SOAP. At that point it would become a usability question of why so many people are mislead into misusing it. That's still a serious question but at least we would have demonstrated that it is feasible to use SOAP and HTTP in a way that makes sense for both. Paul Prescod
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 12:12:54 UTC